Topic: Bitcoin could bring about smaller governments - and that is a good thing - page 3. (Read 3210 times)
August 10, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Bitcoin could destroy the government, and with it the citizenship, the church, the debt and the economy, which was state- and debt-based from the beginning and growing rampant until today, until the end. Stateless communities do not grow economically. That would be a good thing! The destruction of the evil, and not only a reduction. That should be the ambition of real libertarism. A rebirth of the homo sapiens, who had been replaced by the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence. As soon as the self-sufficient, blood-related communities are back and the homo oeconomicus theocraticus collectivisticus extincticus idioticus disappears, Bitcoin will be obsolete and the planet is saved from the sixth great extinction that is unfolding with exponentially increasing speed.
August 10, 2013, 02:49:12 PM
Well that's what they did in appearance in 1913 to fool the people : instead of one single central bank they created a FEDERAL reserve bank with twelve banks to make people believe it would be better whereas there was one bank who leads : the bank of New York (aka Rockefeller).
August 10, 2013, 09:44:00 AM
I would like to see not just reduced government influence, but governments that cover smaller jurisdictions. I'd like to be able to know all my fellow citizens personally, or at least know them to say hello. That would be a very convincing way of producing societies where people really do behave responsibly and accountably. People need to be able to look their peers in the eyes, to know that everyone is truly depending on everyone else.
So, not just "smaller" in terms of influence, but smaller in the number of people they influence too. Almost every country in the world is vastly bloated when looked at this way.
So, not just "smaller" in terms of influence, but smaller in the number of people they influence too. Almost every country in the world is vastly bloated when looked at this way.
August 10, 2013, 08:54:15 AM
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734206&download=yes
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534
Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.
Quote
The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0844743534
Quote
Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson make a strong case that there is a robust negative correlation between government size and economic growth. They base that conclusion on a review of econometric literature using panel data for high-income countries.
..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.
.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.
..... elementary economic reasoning that tells us that economic costs of taxation rise approximately in proportion to the square of the tax rate provides a more powerful case against big government than the results of cross-country econometric studies.
.... The chapter of the book I enjoyed most is the one discussing the effects of high taxation on the choice between income-earning activities and non-income-earning activities. Economists usually view this as a choice between work and leisure and some even argue that high tax rates are likely to make people happier by inducing them to enjoy more leisure with family and friends rather than working. In the real world, however, when people are not earning income much of their time is spent on unpaid household chores. I doubt whether people obtain much more pleasure from housework and weeding the garden than from working for pay.
Seems like a solid empirical case is now being built for smaller governments ... long past time, imho.
Jump to: